Firing Pflugrad, O'Day Will Cost UM at least $147,000

[GrizBacker04]

Uh, no, it's not.

Phlu will be paid to the end of his contract. Done.

O'Day may be a little different because of the 5 month notice requirement. UM may owe him for one more year after his current contract is up. Worst case...

There could be the small matter of the 3 year contract extension Pflu stated he had been verbally given by Oday.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

A verbal promise means nothing, really. No signed contract means no extension. That "promise" is a nice gesture, but not a written contract. You can promise anything to anyone, but until it is put down on paper, it carries no weight. Engstrom could simply say while the AD may promise a contract extension, the final decision is his and/or the board of regents.

That's not true, especially in MT. A verbal promise in a contractual setting is a contract. The proof of the verbal contract is usually the hurdle.

I heard that O'Day had already signed another one-year extension. Don't know if that's true.

I would guess the direct cost of the 2 firings will be from $500,000 - $1 million, or even more if this gets through trial.

Even if O'Day gave Pflugrad a verbal contract, which would be hard to prove, O'Day isn't the person who has the final decision. He can suggest that Pflugrad get a three-year extension, but then the board of regents would have to approve that extension. Also, in the story, it clearly said that O'Day's contract was up, although it rolled over each year. So, by way of not notifying O'Day within the 5-month time frame, he probably does have grounds to request another full year of pay on top of his remaining three months.

And even if this does go to trial, hard to see Pflugrad/O'day winning anything more than what they have received already. UM made a decision not to renew their contracts, which it is legally entitled to do. UM technically did not fire them, just bought out the remainder of their contracts and said have a nice day, you won't be getting new contracts.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Only a man like Jackie Chiles could turn this into a million dollar case.

 

[Growler1]

It's going to cost UM a hell of a lot more than that. At least twice, maybe three times that amount, if they're lucky.

Just like the question about why divorce is so expensive.......the answer is the same......because it is WORTH IT!

 

[Grizinmyyard]

Nobody has even mentioned mental stress. If anybody thinks this gets swept under the rug for a couple hundred grand I have a cool bridge to sell you.

Nobody has mentioned how the assistant coaches and staff will be adversely by this whole fiasco. Do you think that none of them will be wanting a "settlement"?

A million will be cheap.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

TNT, thanks for the link. Assuming O'Day has a similar contract, and assuming that the five-month required notice was not given, total exposure should be less than $300K if UM officials continue to keep their mouths shut. AAA Arbitration? It's a road to nowhere, as both Cliff and Milt realize. Time for everyone to move on.

 

[Grizmayor]

There could be the small matter of the 3 year contract extension Pflu stated he had been verbally given by Oday.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

A verbal promise means nothing, really. No signed contract means no extension. That "promise" is a nice gesture, but not a written contract. You can promise anything to anyone, but until it is put down on paper, it carries no weight. Engstrom could simply say while the AD may promise a contract extension, the final decision is his and/or the board of regents.

That's not true, especially in MT. A verbal promise in a contractual setting is a contract. The proof of the verbal contract is usually the hurdle.

I heard that O'Day had already signed another one-year extension. Don't know if that's true.

I would guess the direct cost of the 2 firings will be from $500,000 - $1 million, or even more if this gets through trial.

Even if O'Day gave Pflugrad a verbal contract, which would be hard to prove, O'Day isn't the person who has the final decision. He can suggest that Pflugrad get a three-year extension, but then the board of regents would have to approve that extension. Also, in the story, it clearly said that O'Day's contract was up, although it rolled over each year. So, by way of not notifying O'Day within the 5-month time frame, he probably does have grounds to request another full year of pay on top of his remaining three months.

And even if this does go to trial, hard to see Pflugrad/O'day winning anything more than what they have received already. UM made a decision not to renew their contracts, which it is legally entitled to do. UM technically did not fire them, just bought out the remainder of their contracts and said have a nice day, you won't be getting new contracts.

Exactly. But why ruin the prognastications of our firm of Peoples Court lawyers posting on EGriz.

 

[PlayerRep]

There could be the small matter of the 3 year contract extension Pflu stated he had been verbally given by Oday.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

A verbal promise means nothing, really. No signed contract means no extension. That "promise" is a nice gesture, but not a written contract. You can promise anything to anyone, but until it is put down on paper, it carries no weight. Engstrom could simply say while the AD may promise a contract extension, the final decision is his and/or the board of regents.

That's not true, especially in MT. A verbal promise in a contractual setting is a contract. The proof of the verbal contract is usually the hurdle.

I heard that O'Day had already signed another one-year extension. Don't know if that's true.

I would guess the direct cost of the 2 firings will be from $500,000 - $1 million, or even more if this gets through trial.

Even if O'Day gave Pflugrad a verbal contract, which would be hard to prove, O'Day isn't the person who has the final decision. He can suggest that Pflugrad get a three-year extension, but then the board of regents would have to approve that extension. Also, in the story, it clearly said that O'Day's contract was up, although it rolled over each year. So, by way of not notifying O'Day within the 5-month time frame, he probably does have grounds to request another full year of pay on top of his remaining three months.

And even if this does go to trial, hard to see Pflugrad/O'day winning anything more than what they have received already. UM made a decision not to renew their contracts, which it is legally entitled to do. UM technically did not fire them, just bought out the remainder of their contracts and said have a nice day, you won't be getting new contracts.

04, a verbal contract is a verbal contract, and that's a contract. If O'Day promised it, it's not hard to prove. O'Day clearly has authority to act on behalf of UM. It doesn't matter if the BOR technically had to approve it, that's the U's problem not Pflu's. UM can't hide behind a technicality like that. Pflu and O'Day will get alot more in settlement than what the article said.

Also, UM fired them. UM hasn't bought out the contract. No such buyout agreement exists. UM hasn't paid them anything for a buyout. Whenever someone is relieved of duties, they have been fired.

Please stop saying such dumb things.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Only a man like Jackie Chiles could turn this into a million dollar case.

Maybe nobody ELSE appreciated this post, AWF, but I sure did... :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

[tnt]

It would take a better lawyer than him. The contract which player rep has apparently not read is still in effect. Even if Milt and team find a way around the binding arbitration and litigation waivers, and manage to establish the fact that an oral contract has been established by the AD that binds the university, despite the fact the conract says his actions have to be approved by the BOR, the matter won't be decided by defense lawyers, but rather the dumb asses that player rep refers to. I'm not thinking there will be a lot of sympathy as our community, (not to mention the innocent kids on the teams) and university are trashed on the national stage. One coul hope there will be a bunch of kool aid drinking boosters on the jury, but the odds aren't good.

 

[PlayerRep]

It would take a better lawyer than him. The contract which player rep has apparently not read is still in effect. Even if Milt and team find a way around the binding arbitration and litigation waivers, and manage to establish the fact that an oral contract has been established by the AD that binds the university, despite the fact the conract says his actions have to be approved by the BOR, the matter won't be decided by defense lawyers, but rather the dumb asses that player rep refers to. I'm not thinking there will be a lot of sympathy as our community, (not to mention the innocent kids on the teams) and university are trashed on the national stage. One coul hope there will be a bunch of kool aid drinking boosters on the jury, but the odds aren't good.

I think you're dumbass, but I know that you won't decide what happens in this situation. You can't possibly be a lawyer. You comments are really quite naive. Litigators get around contacts and provisions and phrases all the time in MT. I still wonder if this form of contact is even enforceable in MT given recent case decisions.

 

[Grizmayor]

It would take a better lawyer than him. The contract which player rep has apparently not read is still in effect. Even if Milt and team find a way around the binding arbitration and litigation waivers, and manage to establish the fact that an oral contract has been established by the AD that binds the university, despite the fact the conract says his actions have to be approved by the BOR, the matter won't be decided by defense lawyers, but rather the dumb asses that player rep refers to. I'm not thinking there will be a lot of sympathy as our community, (not to mention the innocent kids on the teams) and university are trashed on the national stage. One coul hope there will be a bunch of kool aid drinking boosters on the jury, but the odds aren't good.

I bleed maroon and silver... but Uncle Milty and Cousin Cliff do NOT want me on this jury.

 

[GrizBacker04]

A verbal promise means nothing, really. No signed contract means no extension. That "promise" is a nice gesture, but not a written contract. You can promise anything to anyone, but until it is put down on paper, it carries no weight. Engstrom could simply say while the AD may promise a contract extension, the final decision is his and/or the board of regents.

That's not true, especially in MT. A verbal promise in a contractual setting is a contract. The proof of the verbal contract is usually the hurdle.

I heard that O'Day had already signed another one-year extension. Don't know if that's true.

I would guess the direct cost of the 2 firings will be from $500,000 - $1 million, or even more if this gets through trial.

Even if O'Day gave Pflugrad a verbal contract, which would be hard to prove, O'Day isn't the person who has the final decision. He can suggest that Pflugrad get a three-year extension, but then the board of regents would have to approve that extension. Also, in the story, it clearly said that O'Day's contract was up, although it rolled over each year. So, by way of not notifying O'Day within the 5-month time frame, he probably does have grounds to request another full year of pay on top of his remaining three months.

And even if this does go to trial, hard to see Pflugrad/O'day winning anything more than what they have received already. UM made a decision not to renew their contracts, which it is legally entitled to do. UM technically did not fire them, just bought out the remainder of their contracts and said have a nice day, you won't be getting new contracts.

04, a verbal contract is a verbal contract, and that's a contract. If O'Day promised it, it's not hard to prove. O'Day clearly has authority to act on behalf of UM. It doesn't matter if the BOR technically had to approve it, that's the U's problem not Pflu's. UM can't hide behind a technicality like that. Pflu and O'Day will get alot more in settlement than what the article said.

Also, UM fired them. UM hasn't bought out the contract. No such buyout agreement exists. UM hasn't paid them anything for a buyout. Whenever someone is relieved of duties, they have been fired.

Please stop saying such dumb things.

So I am assuming you are a contract lawyer, as well as privy to all the details of how UM is handling this.

O'Day can say he promised the contract and Pflugrad can say it was promised to him, but it would be up to the court to believe that the promise was actually made. And if you want to say that UM fired them, so be it, but technically they did not. UM said they would not renew their contracts and that they were relieved of their duties. They will buy out the rest of their contracts and then move forward, which is what I am sure they are working on right now. Details of the buyout.

And it does matter if the BOR has to approve it, because if they don't, then there is no contract. O'Day could recommend a three-year deal and the BOR could say no. You are essentially saying that in the work place, if someone says "you are getting a new contract or an extension" that is binding even if they are not in the position to make the final decision on that. And you say I am making dumb statements. Solid!

If push comes to shove, UM can also simply reassign them in the department and have them work out the end of their CURRENT contract. Say, Pflugrad could work in facilities until Dec. 31 and O'Day in the Food Zoo.

 

[tnt]

I think you're dumbass, but I know that you won't decide what happens in this situation. You can't possibly be a lawyer. You comments are really quite naive. Litigators get around contacts and provisions and phrases all the time in MT. I still wonder if this form of contact is even enforceable in MT given recent case decisions.

Being a raised to the status of dumbass by you is pretty complimentary actually. I certainly hope YOU are not an attorney. Even a dumbass like me knows no matter how much you twist semantics, you can't polish a turd. You might be able to get it into court, but just like the Krammer case, with luck the client gets what he probably would have gotten anyway (NET) (You know after the contingency fees and expenses are deducted, making the attorny the only winner) and maybe even less because it will be a structured settlement.

The reliance on recent cases, on your part IS concernIng. I'm not sure how the courts review of whether or not contract language turning employment contracts into at will employment (Montana being the only state that prohibits at will employment) is binding applies here.

But then I'm just a dumbass non-lawyer and a naive one at that.

 

[Grizmayor]

I think you're dumbass, but I know that you won't decide what happens in this situation. You can't possibly be a lawyer. You comments are really quite naive. Litigators get around contacts and provisions and phrases all the time in MT. I still wonder if this form of contact is even enforceable in MT given recent case decisions.

Being a raised to the status of dumbass by you is pretty complimentary actually. I certainly hope YOU are not an attorney. Even a dumbass like me knows no matter how much you twist semantics, you can't polish a turd. You might be able to get it into court, but just like the Krammer case, with luck the client gets what he probably would have gotten anyway (NET) (You know after the contingency fees and expenses are deducted, making the attorny the only winner) and maybe even less because it will be a structured settlement.

The reliance on recent cases, on your part IS concernIng. I'm not sure how the courts review of whether or not contract language turning employment contracts into at will employment (Montana being the only state that prohibits at will employment) is binding applies here.

But then I'm just a dumbass non-lawyer and a naive one at that.

I like that new bumpersticker making the rounds... Never confuse Over-educated with Intelligence.

 

[ranco]

It's going to cost UM a hell of a lot more than that. At least twice, maybe three times that amount, if they're lucky.

Uh, no, it's not.

Phlu will be paid to the end of his contract. Done.

O'Day may be a little different because of the 5 month notice requirement. UM may owe him for one more year after his current contract is up. Worst case...

That's what the Kitties thought when they fired (uh, non-renewed) Kramer. Naivety, coupled with ignorance of the law (which MSU, you and Engstrom seem to share) will bite you in the ass every time.

The fact is, Engstrom has already acknowledged that he fired both of them without cause. He told them in person (ie: O’day's statement) that the University simply wanted to move in a new direction. As such, if the matter is ever litigated or arbitrated, the University could not even argue the terminations were due to the sexual assault issues or other player conduct issues. That argument is out the door (unless Engstrom later admits to lying about why he fired them, which would be a wet dream for Edwards and Milt) and the U is left with the reasons Engstrom gave on that day he terminated them. Clearly Engstrom did this on a whim (likely out of anger over Pflu’s comments) and never thought it through.

Yeah, this will cost much much more than $148K.

 

[AZGrizFan]

It's going to cost UM a hell of a lot more than that. At least twice, maybe three times that amount, if they're lucky.

Uh, no, it's not.

Phlu will be paid to the end of his contract. Done.

O'Day may be a little different because of the 5 month notice requirement. UM may owe him for one more year after his current contract is up. Worst case...

That's what the Kitties thought when they fired (uh, non-renewed) Kramer. Naivety, coupled with ignorance of the law (which MSU, you and Engstrom seem to share) will bite you in the ass every time.

The fact is, Engstrom has already acknowledged that he fired both of them without cause. He told them in person (ie: O’day's statement) that the University simply wanted to move in a new direction. As such, if the matter is ever litigated or arbitrated, the University could not even argue the terminations were due to the sexual assault issues or other player conduct issues. That argument is out the door (unless Engstrom later admits to lying about why he fired them, which would be a wet dream for Edwards and Milt) and the U is left with the reasons Engstrom gave on that day he terminated them. Clearly Engstrom did this on a whim (likely out of anger over Pflu’s comments) and never thought it through.

Yeah, this will cost much much more than $148K.

I could see your point if he'd decided to ALSO stop paying them (as per their contract)....but it appears they'r being paid out. What argument do they have? The U isn't under an obligation to renew a contract...

 

[ranco]

It's going to cost UM a hell of a lot more than that. At least twice, maybe three times that amount, if they're lucky.

Uh, no, it's not.

Phlu will be paid to the end of his contract. Done.

O'Day may be a little different because of the 5 month notice requirement. UM may owe him for one more year after his current contract is up. Worst case...

That's what the Kitties thought when they fired (uh, non-renewed) Kramer. Naivety, coupled with ignorance of the law (which MSU, you and Engstrom seem to share) will bite you in the ass every time.

The fact is, Engstrom has already acknowledged that he fired both of them without cause. He told them in person (ie: O’day's statement) that the University simply wanted to move in a new direction. As such, if the matter is ever litigated or arbitrated, the University could not even argue the terminations were due to the sexual assault issues or other player conduct issues. That argument is out the door (unless Engstrom later admits to lying about why he fired them, which would be a wet dream for Edwards and Milt) and the U is left with the reasons Engstrom gave on that day he terminated them. Clearly Engstrom did this on a whim (likely out of anger over Pflu’s comments) and never thought it through.

Yeah, this will cost much much more than $148K.

I could see your point if he'd decided to ALSO stop paying them (as per their contract)....but it appears they'r being paid out. What argument do they have? The U isn't under an obligation to renew a contract...

The U is in material breach of the contract because they are forbidding O'day and Pflu from engaging in their contractual duties. Payment of their salaries is just one aspect of the contract (which also allows for many incentives beyond the base pay). In addition, given Montana law, the U likely could not fire O'day without cause, regardless of his contract. The same argument might be applied to Pflu as well. The renewel term is very vague, which also will not help the U. I expect each of them will end up with a settlement of roughly 3 times their anual wage.

 

[GrizBacker04]

It's going to cost UM a hell of a lot more than that. At least twice, maybe three times that amount, if they're lucky.

Uh, no, it's not.

Phlu will be paid to the end of his contract. Done.

O'Day may be a little different because of the 5 month notice requirement. UM may owe him for one more year after his current contract is up. Worst case...

That's what the Kitties thought when they fired (uh, non-renewed) Kramer. Naivety, coupled with ignorance of the law (which MSU, you and Engstrom seem to share) will bite you in the ass every time.

The fact is, Engstrom has already acknowledged that he fired both of them without cause. He told them in person (ie: O’day's statement) that the University simply wanted to move in a new direction. As such, if the matter is ever litigated or arbitrated, the University could not even argue the terminations were due to the sexual assault issues or other player conduct issues. That argument is out the door (unless Engstrom later admits to lying about why he fired them, which would be a wet dream for Edwards and Milt) and the U is left with the reasons Engstrom gave on that day he terminated them. Clearly Engstrom did this on a whim (likely out of anger over Pflu’s comments) and never thought it through.

Yeah, this will cost much much more than $148K.

MSU did actually fire Kramer and tried not to pay him any more money. Also, their AD said the following quotes as basis for the firing:

"It starts with leadership," Fields said. "When you look at our football program's recent history, it is apparent that its direction does not fit with what this university is all about."

AND

“Looking at the football program as a whole and in light of the recent criminal activities of former student-athletes connected to it, I believe there is something broken with our football program, and we need to take decisive steps to fix it.”

That is why UM is handling things the way it has, because it does not want another law suit. UM has every legal right in deciding not to renew a contract of an employee. Happens all the time. Telling Pflu and O'Day that you are moving another direction and that you are not going to renew their contracts is not giving them a reason for doing it, only saying that is what UM is going to do. UM does not have to give a reason to not renew a contract.

 

[tnt]

The U is in material breach of the contract because they are forbidding O'day and Pflu from engaging in their contractual duties. Payment of their salaries is just one aspect of the contract (which also allows for many incentives beyond the base pay). In addition, given Montana law, the U likely could not fire O'day without cause, regardless of his contract. The same argument might be applied to Pflu as well. The renewel term is very vague, which also will not help the U. I expect each of them will end up with a settlement of roughly 3 times their anual wage.

Which pushing to get to will make either or both poison for anyone else hiring them. By the time contingencey fees are subtracted (I doubt either could afford their high powered lawyers otherwise) expenses (every stamp photo copy discovery etc) They might get slightly more than what they will get through arbitration, but be pretty well stained.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I suggest people re-read Karl Englund's comments in the Missoulian. He knows what he's talking about.